Dating Advice for Divorced Catholics

[CoachSTL]

I would like some prayerful opinions or advice from Catholic lay people, priests and nuns, on whether or not a practicing Catholic should date a divorced, now former Catholic, who married in the Church, that does not have an annulment yet.

 

[1ke]

I would like some prayerful opinions or advice from Catholic lay people, priests and nuns, on whether or not a practicing Catholic should date a divorced, now former Catholic, who married in the Church, that does not have an annulment yet.

Dating someone who classifies themselves as a former Catholic: bad idea.

Dating someone who is divorced and does not have a decree of nullity: bad idea.

Do not go there.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I would like some prayerful opinions or advice from Catholic lay people, priests and nuns, on whether or not a practicing Catholic should date a divorced, now former Catholic, who married in the Church, that does not have an annulment yet.

In my view, dating is a prelude to the possibility of marriage. I would not date someone who was not free to get married. Someone who was married and divorced is not free to marry until and unless they obtain a declaration of nullity. I see this as a road to possible heartbreak.

 

[adelore]

I would like some prayerful opinions or advice from Catholic lay people, priests and nuns, on whether or not a practicing Catholic should date a divorced, now former Catholic, who married in the Church, that does not have an annulment yet.

I’m a Practicing Catholic here are my thoughts:

1. A Practicing Catholic should Not date a “Former Catholic” who is…
   
   a. Divorced and does** Not **have an annulment from the Cathlolic Church.

Why?

First of all someone who call’s themselves a “Former Catholic”, for some reason has left the Catholic Church and all the Churchs Truths. In doing so they are setting themselves up for a lot of Non-Truths, and this in turn could affect you, should the two of you become more than just “dating”. Don’t go down that road it’s not pleasent.

“Do not become unequally yoked.” Good Advice from our Lord.

Then we have the “Former Catholic” who does not have an annulment yet. Now we, as Catholics, do understand that even though this person is Divorced in the Civil Maner, he/she is still "Married" according to God and the Catholic Church.

Now granted he/she may be divorced in the “Civil” sense only and true not living with their spouse, However; this is only a seperation in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Until this person gets an annulment

Thus dating for you as a Catholic with this person is out of the question… (of course you do have “free will”) but I’m talking about the Churchs viewpoint. (you did ask for opnions)

Why? How about the Commandment of Adultry, (yes we are human and even if no physical things happened, it could enter your mind, I’m not juding, nor implying that this would happen…but it could) or do not covet thy neighbors wife? spouse (I do believe dating someones wife/husband could be looked at as Coveting. (After all he/she is still married in the eyes of the Catholic Church.)

Now if this person was to get an annulment and return to the Catholic Church…then that’s a horse of a different color.

Ok that’s my 2 cents worth.

(by no means am I juding you, but you asked what our thoughts were.)

 

[benedictgal]

When I was much younger, I fell in love with someone 12 years older than me. We were together for about four years when I found out that he got engaged. I never suspected it and thought that I would be the one spending the rest of my life with him. It did not happen. It was as though someone dug a knife deep in my heart. I agree with Dante that betrayal is the worst sin of all.

I still love him very much; however, if he were to divorce (he married in the church), I could not date him or have anything to do with him. That is why I cried so very hard because I had lost him forever, even though, in the back of my mind I should have been grateful because I do not think I could have tolerated infidelity.

Now, as I get older, the pool of eligible men is declining. The ones who are left are mostly divorced (with a huge possibility that they do not have annulments). I can’t touch them with a 10-foot pole. If I enter into a relationship with someone, it must be with a man who is free to marry as the Church defines it, not as I define it.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Now, as I get older, the pool of eligible men is declining. The ones who are left are mostly divorced (with a huge possibility that they do not have annulments). I can’t touch them with a 10-foot pole. If I enter into a relationship with someone, it must be with a man who is free to marry as the Church defines it, not as I define it.

You know, this is a sad fact of life.Few older men (40’s & up) are eligible to be married in the Church. Women live longer than men as a rule & eligible widowers are few & far between or very elderly.
If someone is single & beyond their 30’s there may be a good reason.
“Former” Catholics who are divorced without an annulment are a dime a dozen. I know that doesn’t sound kind, but at least in our area it’s true. Sadly, many consider themselves free to date.
I’d surely stay away from that situation.

 

[1ke]

You know, this is a sad fact of life.Few older men (40’s & up) are eligible to be married in the Church. Women live longer than men as a rule & eligible widowers are few & far between or very elderly.
If someone is single & beyond their 30’s there may be a good reason.

I disagree. I was 38 and DH 43 when we married 4 years ago. He was absolutely worth waiting for. He is a devout, practicing Catholic man who loves me beyond measure-- and I him.

Had I not met DH or another devout, Catholic man I would be single. OP-- Never desire to be married more than to please God.

“Former” Catholics who are divorced without an annulment are a dime a dozen. I know that doesn’t sound kind, but at least in our area it’s true. Sadly, many consider themselves free to date.
I’d surely stay away from that situation.

Yep. They are plentiful, and for some they are tempting. It’s a bad idea all the way around.

 

[Timothysis]

If someone is single & beyond their 30’s there may be a good reason.

And what do you mean by THAT?!?!?

(btw I’m single and beyond 30)

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I would like some prayerful opinions or advice from Catholic lay people, priests and nuns, on whether or not a practicing Catholic should date a divorced, now former Catholic, who married in the Church, that does not have an annulment yet.

NO

 

[diggerdomer]

I would like some prayerful opinions or advice from Catholic lay people, priests and nuns, on whether or not a practicing Catholic should date a divorced, now former Catholic, who married in the Church, that does not have an annulment yet.

Are you attracted to him/her? If yes then of course go ahead and date. If not, obviously don’t. Either way, make sure you communicate your faith principles/views in case there’s some conflict.

Cheers

 

[rpp]

I would like some prayerful opinions or advice from Catholic lay people, priests and nuns, on whether or not a practicing Catholic should date a divorced, now former Catholic, who married in the Church, that does not have an annulment yet.

If you are cidering dating a person cannot marry in the Church, eventually you will confronted with the shoice of marrying outside of the Church or leaving them. Such a decision can lead only to great heartache at best, ad imperiling you soul at worst. As so many others have said, avoid this terrible difficulty.

As a middle-aged single man, I would never date a woman who cannot marry in the Church.

 

[diggerdomer]

I would like some prayerful opinions or advice from Catholic lay people, priests and nuns, on whether or not a practicing Catholic should date a divorced, now former Catholic, who married in the Church, that does not have an annulment yet.

Man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for man.

(excuse the sexist language)

The importance of this relationship to you will determine how far you’re willing to go regarding Church rules.

Peace and best wishes.

 

[IrishAm]

Now, as I get older, the pool of eligible men is declining. The ones who are left are mostly divorced (with a huge possibility that they do not have annulments). I can’t touch them with a 10-foot pole. If I enter into a relationship with someone, it must be with a man who is free to marry as the Church defines it, not as I define it.

Me, too, benedictgal, me too . . .

 

[graceandglory]

The importance of this relationship to you will determine how far you’re willing to go regarding Church rules.

.

Situationalism and moral relativity in a nutshell. Not a faithful Catholic perspective.

 

[diggerdomer]

Situationalism and moral relativity in a nutshell. Not a faithful Catholic perspective.

No. That was not my intent. I am trying to be a faithful Catholic but maybe you know something I don’t. I don’t subscribe to situationalism or moral relativity.

Cheers

 

[Benadam]

Coach, in God’s eyes this person may belong to another.

 

[benedictgal]

Are you attracted to him/her? If yes then of course go ahead and date. If not, obviously don’t. Either way, make sure you communicate your faith principles/views in case there’s some conflict.

Cheers

With all due respect, why would you even encourage someone to go and date someone who will not be free to marry? Dating, in most cases, involves some kind of emotional investment in the other party. You fall in love with the guy and you are setting yourself for a heartbreak because you know that he is still married in the eyes of God, regardless of whether or not the man left the Church. That is not a good situation to place yourself in because you are committing adultery since you are dating someone who is not free to marry and is still married to his wife.

 

[rpp]

Are you attracted to him/her? If yes then of course go ahead and date. If not, obviously don’t. Either way, make sure you communicate your faith principles/views in case there’s some conflict.

Cheers

Situationalism and moral relativity in a nutshell. Not a faithful Catholic perspective.

No. That was not my intent. I am trying to be a faithful Catholic but maybe you know something I don’t. I don’t subscribe to situationalism or moral relativity.

Cheers

There is no other way to interpret your words that in support of relativism. If you do not think so, please explain what unchangeable objective moral standing you are applying by encouraging someone to to become emotionally involved with a person who, in the eyes of the Church is actually married? How is this not encouraging adultery?

We await your thorough and well-reasoned answer.

 

[diggerdomer]

There is no other way to interpret your words that in support of relativism. If you do not think so, please explain what unchangeable objective moral standing you are applying by encouraging someone to to become emotionally involved with a person who, in the eyes of the Church is actually married? How is this not encouraging adultery?

We await your thorough and well-reasoned answer.

I never encouraged adultery. That was someone else interpreting or putting words in my mouth (so to speak).

I did not encourage anyone to become emotionally involved. Please read my initial post. I simply said if one person is attracted to another go ahead and date (if you want to…and given that the other was not currently married) but I also said that it’s important to reflect on and communicate issues related to faith that may be significant and apply in the situation.

You’re reading way more into what I wrote.

Cheers

 

[rpp]

I never encouraged adultery. That was someone else interpreting or putting words in my mouth (so to speak).

I did not encourage anyone to become emotionally involved. Please read my initial post. I simply said if one person is attracted to another go ahead and date (if you want to…and given that the other was not currently married) but I also said that it’s important to reflect on and communicate issues related to faith that may be significant and apply in the situation.

You’re reading way more into what I wrote.

Cheers

We all read your post and many shuddered.

You seem to have a remarkable lack of understanding of what marriage is. A married person cannot date a person they are not married to. That would be a form of adultery. A divorced person without an annulment is still a married person. To date such a person is to commit a form of adultery. To encourage someone to date another is to encourage an emotional attachment. To encourage a person to date a married person is to encourage a form of adultery. Period. No wiggle room. No weasel words will get you out of that.

Your position is morally reprehensible and as we see in your post, based on (we hope) ignorance.

Just because you think something is right does not make it so. You know considerable less about what the Church teaches than you think you do.